At 5:30 pm Chairman Caleb Davis opened the meeting and presented the evening agenda. After identifying the presence of a quorum Davis asked if there were any changes or corrections to be made to the Minutes of the August 17 2017 meeting. There being none, Davis asked for a motion to approve the August 17 minutes. Wade Purdom so moved, seconded by John Cranor, and there being no further discussion Davis called for a vote. The votes were as follows:

[Planning & Zoning minutes are transcribed from the conversation that takes place during the meeting. Topics are condensed, eliminating verbatim comment in order to condense the material. Key points are included in this extraction and all votes taken are recorded.]

Next on the agenda was a presentation made by Matt Philbrook concerning Application 17-139, a request for a Conditional Use Permit authorizing the placement of a multi-plex structure (6 units) on parcel RP62N01E346141A. Chairman Davis read the scripts for general procedures regarding public hearings and specifically the Quasi-Judicial Script for Application 17-139, a Conditional Use regarding the placement of multiple structures in a residential zone (Section 15.12.5.). Adam Isaac asked to be recused from the discussion and voting based on having a personal relationship with the applicant. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Philbrook for an opening statement.

Mr. Philbrook explained that he installed a 4-plex on the subject property in approximately 2005-2007. He said there is a need for affordable rental housing in the location adjacent to the Safeway store on Main Street, more in fact than is currently available including his 4-plex installed more than ten years ago. He said there is adequate room for parking, including the estimated space requirements for both complexes.

After the opening statement, Davis asked for a Staff Report. Staff said the applicant had requested a Residential Placement Permit (17-138) in order to place a 6-plex structure on the parcel in question. Because this parcel is in a residential zone, a Conditional Use Permit is required in addition to the Residential Placement Permit. (If the Conditional Use is approved, the Residential Placement Permit would also be approved, containing in that approval any terms and conditions established by the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the Conditional Use.)

In the Staff Analysis it was pointed out that the property lies in the Area of Impact of Bonners Ferry. Bonners Ferry has submitted a letter which addresses city concerns about being able to provide service, including:

an additional upgraded water service

water and sewer application would require consent to annexation

upgrades to the city sewer collection system

applicant subject to the City's Facility Extension Policy

preferred access from Walker Lane as opposed to Tamarack Drive

Staff also pointed out that a Special Use Permit issued to Mr. Philbrook in 2005 specifically stated the following terms and conditions: "Two additional parking spaces be developed in addition to those depicted on the site plan, and that no further residential development on this parcel shall be allowed.". Staff pointed out that times change and that issues present in 2005 may or may not be in place today. It is up to the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine the relevant facts concerning this application and decide accordingly. Staff pointed out that while posting the sign on the property announcing the scheduled hearing he could not help but notice that access to the parcel via Walker Lane was prohibitive, because the driveway space would consume a large portion of the available land. In contrast, access from Tamarack Drive provided driveway and parking spaces consistent with the existing layout of one structure (4-plex) plus the newly proposed 6-plex structure, including what appeared to be sufficient space for turnaround maneuvering plus outside parking for perhaps 12 to 14 vehicles. This concluded the Staff Report. Davis asked if there were any questions for Staff regarding the report. There being none, Davis pointed out that in addition to the letter from the City Of Bonners Ferry there is a letter from Katherine Shively Allen, a neighbor, objecting to the request. In addition to objecting to what seems unreasonable regarding the number of people and traffic involved, Ms. Allen also expresses concern regarding any subsequent desire to build on her own property if Mr. Philbrook's request were to max out the water, sewer and electricity available due to his request.

Davis asked if there were anyone present wishing to speak regarding the application for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Rick Beck of Beck's Furniture Store wished to comment in favor of the proposal, agreeing the need exists for such housing and stating that many customers of his furniture store asked if there were rentals in the area. Mr. Beck expressed his thanks for being able to share his point of view in support of Mr. Philbrook's request. Mr. Beck left the meeting.

There being nobody from the public but the applicant left to speak, Davis asked Mr. Philbrook if he would like to make a closing statement. Mr. Philbrook said that he is pursuing his request in two courts, County and City. First he needs to get approval from the County but he must also meet with the City regarding his request. He said he appreciated the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewing his application. Chairman Davis thanked Mr. Philbrook and said he may be asked for more specific details if the Planning and Zoning Commission had questions. Davis closed the hearing to public comment and asked the Commission to deliberate.

Ron Self said that obviously the City was in control of what happens here. If they say "no" then what does it matter what the Planning and Zoning Commission says? Davis said that if we think of the request as coming from anyone anywhere in the county, NOT in the Bonners Ferry Area of Impact, would this have a different impact on the considerations being made? Tim Heenan said that was just the point: that the decision should be made based on County residency, not on how close or dependent the applicant is to the City. John Cranor concurred, saying that Mr. Philbrook's issues with the City were not related to the placement of a structure for multiple residences on the parcel; the ordinance allows this consideration in the residential zone.

Rob Woywod questioned the parking spaces available for existing tenants as well as for the new units. His concern related to outside as well as covered parking, since it appeared the existing tenants all parked outside; if one presumed 2 spaces for each unit, which would amount to 20 parking spaces required, and how was this being accommodated? After asking for and receiving permission to get answers from the applicant, Mr. Philbrook responded by saying there were 3 of the four existing tenants having but one vehicle, so the immediate need was for less than 8 parking spaces. However, there are 6 spaces proposed to be covered for each of the six proposed units and the remaining 14 required spaces (outdoors) fits the available space requirements. Purdom stated the space calculations he was able to make in estimating from a Google Earth projection on his laptop confirmed what appeared to be available space. Woywod said the number of spaces was referred to in the previous terms and conditions and was curious as to how things mapped out in the current projection.

Co-Chair Purdom then asked about access via Tamarack Drive: Who maintained the road? Who shared the access, if any neighbors used the same road? Mr Philbrook replied that he and Mr. Doug Ladely Sr. shared the road, Mr Ladely having property on the east side of Tamarack Drive while his property lay on the west side of Tamarack Drive. Both he and Mr. Ladely had maintained that road for over 30 years, he said. John Cranor asked whether Boundary County had maintained the road and Mr. Philbrook replied that the County access to the road, over City streets to maintain a short stretch of roadway, was cost-prohibitive for the County and that he had maintained Tamarack Drive himself. He said the road is well cared for, not pot-holed, and that additional traffic would not pose a problem for maintaining Tamarack Drive.

Scott Fuller asked about the logistics of placing six units on the parcel, considering space demands for living quarters, covered parking, driveway access and turnaround maneuvering. Mr. Philbrook responded by saying the units mapped out well in supporting 6 new units; that if he were forced to reduce the number to 5 units he would not be able to afford the development. He said that it is cost-effective and feasible to build 6 units as he has planned. Fuller asked if he had asked a civil engineer to validate his plans, to which Mr. Philbrook replied by saying he IS a civil engineer, licensed in Alaska. He stated that his planned proposal would be an asset to the community, would provide convenient access to local shopping by the residents and provide those same residents with comfortable and affordable housing.

John Cranor moved to approve based on the reasonable assumption that adequate sewer, water and electrical utilities are provided; seconded by Ron Self. Wade Purdom moved to amend the motion, adding the provision that responsibility for road maintenance be borne by the property owner; seconded by Rob Woywod. The Planning and Zoning Commission members discussed this added provision, recalling the applicant had said he has done this for many years, and the Planning and Zoning Commission realized this Conditional Use would go with the land and that a subsequent owner would need to understand this road maintenance obligation goes with the property.

There being no further discussion Davis called for a vote on the amended motion, specifically, to approve based on the reasonable assumption that adequate sewer, water and electrical utilities are provided and that responsibility for road maintenance of Tamarack Drive would be borne by the property owner of parcel #RP62N01E346141A. The votes were as follows:

The motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit (and dependent application 17-138, Residential Placement Permit) based on an adequate supply of water, sewer and electrical utilities and the property owner's requirement to maintain the access to the property via Tamarack Drive was unanimous.

The last item on the Agenda had to do with the Comprehensive Plan 2008-23 as amended by Resolution 2010-07 considerations. Staff explained that after the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended the existing Plan be retained, the County Commissioners have 30 days to review the recommendation before either a) returning the recommendation with suggestions for further review or b) accept the recommendation and place on the County Commissioners' schedule a public hearing for public comment concerning the recommendation. Staff explained the time frame for review ends on October 1 and subsequent determination and action by the Commissioners will be scheduled on or after October 2 2017.